California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Fitzhugh, C089261 (Cal. App. 2021):
We need not conclusively determine the requirements of section 1170.95, subdivision (c) because any error in the trial court's procedures would be harmless even under the more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711].) As we noted in Barnes, the jury found the robbery-murder special circumstance true for the murder count. For the special circumstances under section 190.2, subdivision (17)(A), the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 703 as follows: "If you decide that a defendant is guilty of first degree murder under a Felony Murder theory but was not the actual killer, then, when you consider the special circumstance of Murder in the Commission of a Robbery, you must
Page 8
also decide whether the defendant acted either with intent to kill or with reckless indifference to human life.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.